On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 10:21:31 +0100
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 12:28:03 +0100
> Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 19:28:58 +0100,
> > Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll not send a formal v9 until early next week, so here is the current state
> > > if you have time to take another look before then.
> >
> > Don't bother resending this on my account -- you only sent it on
> > Friday and there hasn't been much response to it yet. There is still a
> > problem (see below), but looks otherwise OK.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -2363,11 +2381,25 @@ gic_acpi_parse_madt_gicc(union acpi_subtable_headers *header,
> > > (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
> > > u32 reg = readl_relaxed(acpi_data.dist_base + GICD_PIDR2) & GIC_PIDR2_ARCH_MASK;
> > > u32 size = reg == GIC_PIDR2_ARCH_GICv4 ? SZ_64K * 4 : SZ_64K * 2;
> > > + int cpu = get_cpu_for_acpi_id(gicc->uid);
> >
> > I already commented that get_cpu_for_acpi_id() can...
>
> Indeed sorry - I blame Friday syndrome for me failing to address that.
>
> >
> > > void __iomem *redist_base;
> > >
> > > - if (!acpi_gicc_is_usable(gicc))
> > > + /* Neither enabled or online capable means it doesn't exist, skip it */
> > > + if (!(gicc->flags & (ACPI_MADT_ENABLED | ACPI_MADT_GICC_ONLINE_CAPABLE)))
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * Capable but disabled CPUs can be brought online later. What about
> > > + * the redistributor? ACPI doesn't want to say!
> > > + * Virtual hotplug systems can use the MADT's "always-on" GICR entries.
> > > + * Otherwise, prevent such CPUs from being brought online.
> > > + */
> > > + if (!(gicc->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED)) {
> > > + pr_warn("CPU %u's redistributor is inaccessible: this CPU can't be brought online\n", cpu);
> > > + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &broken_rdists);
> >
> > ... return -EINVAL, and then be passed to cpumask_set_cpu(), with
> > interesting effects. It shouldn't happen, but I trust anything that
> > comes from firmware tables as much as I trust a campaigning
> > politician's promises. This should really result in the RD being
> > considered unusable, but without affecting any CPU (there is no valid
> > CPU the first place).
> >
> > Another question is what get_cpu_for acpi_id() returns for a disabled
> > CPU. A valid CPU number? Or -EINVAL?
> It's a match function that works by iterating over 0 to nr_cpu_ids and
>
> if (uid == get_acpi_id_for_cpu(cpu))
>
> So the question become does get_acpi_id_for_cpu() return a valid CPU
> number for a disabled CPU.
>
> That uses acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(cpu)->uid so this all gets a bit circular.
> That looks it up via cpu_madt_gicc[cpu] which after the proposed updated
> patch is set if enabled or online capable. There are however a few other
> error checks in acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface() that could lead to it
> not being set (MPIDR validity checks). I suspect all of these end up being
> fatal elsewhere which is why this hasn't blown up before.
>
> If any of those cases are possible we could get a null pointer
> dereference.
>
> Easy to harden this case via the following (which will leave us with
> -EINVAL. There are other call sites that might trip over this.
> I'm inclined to harden them as a separate issue though so as not
> to get in the way of this patch set.
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> index bc9a6656fc0c..a407f9cd549e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> @@ -124,7 +124,8 @@ static inline int get_cpu_for_acpi_id(u32 uid)
> int cpu;
>
> for (cpu = 0; cpu < nr_cpu_ids; cpu++)
> - if (uid == get_acpi_id_for_cpu(cpu))
> + if (acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(cpu) &&
> + uid == get_acpi_id_for_cpu(cpu))
> return cpu;
>
> return -EINVAL;
>
> I'll spin an additional patch to make that change after testing I haven't
> messed it up.
>
> At the call site in gic_acpi_parse_madt_gicc() I'm not sure we can do better
> than just skipping setting broken_rdists. I'll also pull the declaration of
> that cpu variable down into this condition so it's more obvious we only
> care about it in this error path.
Just for the record, for my deliberately broken test case it seems that it returns
a valid CPU ID anyway. That's what I'd expect given acpi_parse_and_init_cpus()
doesn't check if the gicc entrees are enabled or not.
Jonathan
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > M.
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
